Should U.S. intervene in Syria?

Kerry In Italy

Getty Images

Secretary of State John Kerry (L) greets the press as Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta welcomes him in Rome on Thursday. Kerry insisted Thursday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will have to step down as part of any political solution in Syria.

Secretary of State John Kerry (L) greets the press as Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta welcomes him in Rome on Thursday. Kerry insisted Thursday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will have to step down as part of any political solution in Syria. (Getty Images)

Some Republican U.S. senators are urging President Obama to intervene more aggressively on the side of rebels in the Syrian civil war, especially in the wake of reports that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his people. While senators haven’t called for the U.S. to dispatch troops to the conflict, they are suggesting other military moves, such as arming rebels and bombing Syrian air bases. Obama has warned that Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” for the United States. Do you think the U.S. has to get more involved now? What, if anything, should we do? Would U.S. credibility with Iran and North Korea suffer if we don’t do more to help the Syrian rebels? Would the U.S. do more harm than good in Syria and the rest of the Arab world by getting involved? Talk about it!